Lawyerly

GR No. 156577

2014-12-03

MENDOZA, J.

Second, Perez as Chairman of RIBAC, pre-qualified PAL Boat despite its financial inability to undertake the project, and inspite of his knowledge that PAL Boat had more liabilities than capital.[44] The purpose of pre-qualification in any public bidding is to determine, at the earliest opportunity, the ability of the bidder to undertake the project. Thus, with respect to the bidder's financial capacity at the pre-qualification stage, the government agency must examine and determine the ability of the bidder to fund the entire cost of the project by considering the maximum amounts that each bidder may invest in the project at the time of pre-qualification. [45]

GR No. 209287

2014-07-01

MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III

BERSAMIN, J.

The Court has cogently observed in Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.[46] that "[s]tanding is a peculiar concept in constitutional law because in some cases, suits are not brought by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of a law or any other government act but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest."

GR No. 201112

2012-10-23

ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC

PERALTA, J.

We maintain the view that the extension of the option period is an amendment to the AES Contract authorized by Article 19 thereof. As held in Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.:[58]

GR No. 192591

2012-07-30

EFREN L. ALVAREZ v. PEOPLE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In fact, that the Government first communicates with a prospective investor who then submits an unsolicited proposal has not been unprecedented. The Court actually took note of one such situation in Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminal Co., Inc.,[24] as the following excerpt indicates: In August 1989, the DOTC engaged the services of Aeroport de Paris (ADP) to conduct a comprehensive study of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) and determine whether the present airport can cope with the traffic development up to the year 2010. The study consisted of two parts: first, traffic forecasts, capacity of existing facilities, NAIA future requirements, proposed master plans and development plans; and second, presentation of the preliminary design of the passenger terminal building. The ADP submitted a Draft Final Report to the DOTC in December 1989.

GR No. 201112

2012-06-13

ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC

PERALTA, J.

Thus, in view of the compelling significance and transcending public importance of the issues raised by petitioners, the technicalities raised by respondents should not be allowed to stand in the way, if the ends of justice would not be subserved by a rigid adherence to the rules of procedure.[30]

GR No. 201112

2012-06-13

ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC

PERALTA, J.

There can be no doubt that the coming 10 May 2010 [in this case, May 2013] elections is a matter of great public concern. On election day, the country's registered voters will come out to exercise the sacred right of suffrage. Not only is it an exercise that ensures the preservation of our democracy, the coming elections also embodies our people's last ounce of hope for a better future. It is the final opportunity, patiently awaited by our people, for the peaceful transition of power to the next chosen leaders of our country. If there is anything capable of directly affecting the lives of ordinary Filipinos so as to come within the ambit of a public concern, it is the coming elections, more so with the alarming turn of events that continue to unfold. The wanton wastage of public funds brought about by one bungled contract after another, in staggering amounts, is in itself a matter of grave public concern.[29]

GR No. 183789

2011-08-24

POWER SECTOR ASSETS v. POZZOLANIC PHILIPPINES INCORPORATED

PEREZ, J.

Thus, in the case of Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.[51] (PIATCO), the Supreme Court declared as null and void, for being contrary to public policy, the Concession Agreement entered into by the government with PIATCO because it contained provisions that substantially departed from the draft Concession Agreement included in the bid documents.[52]

GR No. 191002

2010-03-17

ARTURO M. DE CASTRO v. JBC

BERSAMIN, J.

Black defines locus standi as "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."[41] In public or constitutional litigations, the Court is often burdened with the determination of the locus standi of the petitioners due to the ever-present need to regulate the invocation of the intervention of the Court to correct any official action or policy in order to avoid obstructing the efficient functioning of public officials and offices involved in public service. It is required, therefore, that the petitioner must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy, for, as indicated in Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.:[42]

GR NO. 167324

2007-07-17

TONDO MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In a number of cases,[41] the Court upheld the standing of citizens who filed suits, wherein the "transcendental importance" of the constitutional question justified the granting of relief. In spite of these rulings, the Court, in Domingo v. Carague,[42] dismissed the petition when petitioners therein failed to show any present substantial interest. It demonstrated how even in the cases in which the Court declared that the matter of the case was of transcendental importance, the petitioners must be able to assert substantial interest. Present substantial interest, which will enable a party to question the validity of the law, requires that a party sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement.[43] It is distinguished from a mere expectancy or future, contingent, subordinate, or inconsequential interest.[44]

GR NO. 167919

2007-02-14

PLARIDEL M. ABAYA v. SECRETARY HERMOGENES E. EBDANE

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Briefly stated, locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."[38] More particularly, it is a party's personal and substantial interest in a case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act being challenged. It calls for more than just a generalized grievance. The term "interest" means a material interest, an interest in issue affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest.[39] Standing or locus standi is a peculiar concept in constitutional law[40] and the rationale for requiring a party who challenges the constitutionality of a statute to allege such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy is "to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions."[41]

	GR No. 156577 2014-12-03	ALEJANDRO C. RIVERA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Second, Perez as Chairman of RIBAC, pre-qualified PAL Boat despite its financial inability to undertake the project, and inspite of his knowledge that PAL Boat had more liabilities than capital.[44] The purpose of pre-qualification in any public bidding is to determine, at the earliest opportunity, the ability of the bidder to undertake the project. Thus, with respect to the bidder's financial capacity at the pre-qualification stage, the government agency must examine and determine the ability of the bidder to fund the entire cost of the project by considering the maximum amounts that each bidder may invest in the project at the time of pre-qualification. [45]
	GR No. 209287 2014-07-01	MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BERSAMIN, J.
The Court has cogently observed in Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.[46] that "[s]tanding is a peculiar concept in constitutional law because in some cases, suits are not brought by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of a law or any other government act but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest."
	GR No. 201112 2012-10-23	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
We maintain the view that the extension of the option period is an amendment to the AES Contract authorized by Article 19 thereof. As held in Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.:[58]
	GR No. 192591 2012-07-30	EFREN L. ALVAREZ v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In fact, that the Government first communicates with a prospective investor who then submits an unsolicited proposal has not been unprecedented. The Court actually took note of one such situation in Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminal Co., Inc.,[24] as the following excerpt indicates: In August 1989, the DOTC engaged the services of Aeroport de Paris (ADP) to conduct a comprehensive study of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) and determine whether the present airport can cope with the traffic development up to the year 2010. The study consisted of two parts: first, traffic forecasts, capacity of existing facilities, NAIA future requirements, proposed master plans and development plans; and second, presentation of the preliminary design of the passenger terminal building. The ADP submitted a Draft Final Report to the DOTC in December 1989.
	GR No. 201112 2012-06-13	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
Thus, in view of the compelling significance and transcending public importance of the issues raised by petitioners, the technicalities raised by respondents should not be allowed to stand in the way, if the ends of justice would not be subserved by a rigid adherence to the rules of procedure.[30]
	GR No. 201112 2012-06-13	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
There can be no doubt that the coming 10 May 2010 [in this case, May 2013] elections is a matter of great public concern. On election day, the country's registered voters will come out to exercise the sacred right of suffrage. Not only is it an exercise that ensures the preservation of our democracy, the coming elections also embodies our people's last ounce of hope for a better future. It is the final opportunity, patiently awaited by our people, for the peaceful transition of power to the next chosen leaders of our country. If there is anything capable of directly affecting the lives of ordinary Filipinos so as to come within the ambit of a public concern, it is the coming elections, more so with the alarming turn of events that continue to unfold. The wanton wastage of public funds brought about by one bungled contract after another, in staggering amounts, is in itself a matter of grave public concern.[29]
	GR No. 183789 2011-08-24	POWER SECTOR ASSETS v. POZZOLANIC PHILIPPINES INCORPORATED PEREZ, J.
Thus, in the case of Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.[51] (PIATCO), the Supreme Court declared as null and void, for being contrary to public policy, the Concession Agreement entered into by the government with PIATCO because it contained provisions that substantially departed from the draft Concession Agreement included in the bid documents.[52]
	GR No. 191002 2010-03-17	ARTURO M. DE CASTRO v. JBC BERSAMIN, J.
Black defines locus standi as "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."[41] In public or constitutional litigations, the Court is often burdened with the determination of the locus standi of the petitioners due to the ever-present need to regulate the invocation of the intervention of the Court to correct any official action or policy in order to avoid obstructing the efficient functioning of public officials and offices involved in public service. It is required, therefore, that the petitioner must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy, for, as indicated in Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.:[42]
	GR NO. 167324 2007-07-17	TONDO MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In a number of cases,[41] the Court upheld the standing of citizens who filed suits, wherein the "transcendental importance" of the constitutional question justified the granting of relief. In spite of these rulings, the Court, in Domingo v. Carague,[42] dismissed the petition when petitioners therein failed to show any present substantial interest. It demonstrated how even in the cases in which the Court declared that the matter of the case was of transcendental importance, the petitioners must be able to assert substantial interest. Present substantial interest, which will enable a party to question the validity of the law, requires that a party sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement.[43] It is distinguished from a mere expectancy or future, contingent, subordinate, or inconsequential interest.[44]
	GR NO. 167919 2007-02-14	PLARIDEL M. ABAYA v. SECRETARY HERMOGENES E. EBDANE CALLEJO, SR., J.
Briefly stated, locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."[38] More particularly, it is a party's personal and substantial interest in a case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act being challenged. It calls for more than just a generalized grievance. The term "interest" means a material interest, an interest in issue affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest.[39] Standing or locus standi is a peculiar concept in constitutional law[40] and the rationale for requiring a party who challenges the constitutionality of a statute to allege such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy is "to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions."[41]

DEMOSTHENES P. AGAN v. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO.